Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6665128" data-attributes="member: 50895">Not being a 5e person, I haven't looked (nor will look) at any 5e discussion. That said, I would say I would agree with the proponents that a fighter should always be portrayed as a highly skilled, general martial combatant, that gets the best of Conan in strength and skill, but never gain pseudo-magical capability. Looking at the various "half-caster" class features in PF, with some spell-like abilities does not belong to a fighter.Regarding the second part, allowing fighters more skill points, or some kind of add-on subsystem of extraordinary abilities seems viable to allow a fighter some out-of-combat capability. I can see a justification for that.Back in 1e days, before specialization in combat styles became a thing, a fighter was supposed to be good at using any kind of martial weapon. Whatever weapons he carried, or found in a dungeon could be optimally used, and be more effective in the hands of a fighter, than any other class. While specialization made fighters more skilled at whatever weapon and combat style each preferred, at the same time it greatly limited the overall general capability of fighter. I don't think the 1e type of fighter can be achieved with the modern game's need for specialization - the too concepts are incongruent, which is unfortunate.Between fighters and rangers, I've always preferred ranger, probably because of the out-of-combat (at least in wilderness situations) capability of the ranger, while still essentially being a "fighter". Without truly emulating a ranger, if fighter could gain access to some out of combat capability, it would be an improvement, though I have no specifics on how that should be done.</blockquote>

Verification